ML20140F208
| ML20140F208 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/04/1984 |
| From: | Martin J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | Naymark S QUADREX CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140B849 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-740 NUDOCS 8603310148 | |
| Download: ML20140F208 (1) | |
Text
s. _, ~ , . _ . ,. .,m._. . . _ , . . .,
....._7_. ..
s,,.- ,
f.p .m%, '
UMTED STATES
?\ ,
'Ig NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. E REGION Y
, $ 1450 manta LANE,sulTE 210 /
4 .-
'* ,D WALNUT CREEK,CALIFORNLA M946 l
( ** N .'.....'o .
April 4, 1984 Dr. Sherman Haymark, President Quadrex Corporation 1700 Dell Avenue Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Dr. Naymark:
The purpose of this letter is.Ito~ followup on our telephone discussions of April 2 and 3, 1984. As we discussed, the NRC staff has completed an inspection of welding activities involving the Pullman Power Corporation.
Specifically, the inspection involved a review of the findings of an audit done by Nuclear Services (H5C) dated October 27, 1977. The results of our inspection are enclosed.
The results of our review differ from those of the NSC auditors. I would aopreciate your review of our report, and would like to work with you to detemine the reasons for the differences.
The Coraission is currently scheduled to review this item, among others, on April 13, 1984. I would hope we could determine the reasons for the differences by then. If such a meeting is held, I would like to know
.6 ether you would care to be there to explain your position.
1*would appreciate hearing from ou pr ptly.
[tSf. .
J. B. Martin Regional Administrator Enclosure .
a/s
' Enclosure 1 G6033gi4g860206 m ,.. N ""
S
(
r GUADREX' .
8 April 9, 1984 Mr. J. B. Martin Regional Admi nis tra tur U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.ission, Region V 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 Walnut Creek CA 94596
Dear Mr. Martin:
Over the past few days, members of your staff and you have contacted me with respect t.o . t h e quality assurance audit that Quadrex Corporation, forme.rly Nuclour Services Corporation (ESC), performed fur the Pull ma n-Kellogg Company in August-September 1977. Thi s audit covered Pu11 man's pipinS construction
(.
and erection work ut PGundE's Diable Canyon Facility. Additional-our letter to me of April 4, 1984, supplemented the prior ly, tele hone conversations we had and asked if Quadrex could review reports of the NRC audit (Report Sos. 50-275/83-37 and 50-323/83-25 dated February 29, 1986) which reviewed Quadrex's yudit dated October 27, 1977, and if we ~ would determine the reasons for the different findings of the two reports.
For background information, Quadrcx vos contracted by Pullman-Kellogg (PK) in August of 1977 to perform an audit of the PK performance at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility. An abbrevi-ated audit was requested which commenecd on August 22, 1977, at the Diabl o Canynn site and extended through September 20, 1977, with 3 to 4 quulity assurance engineers from Quadrcx participar-in:;. Since the audit scope was greatly limited by the client as to time, funds, and investigative scope and was an "in-process" audit taking a snapshot look at the QA proccdures and documenta-tion made available to the auditors by the client, the findings were based only on presented documentation plus some interviews with appropriate PK people.
Quadrex management reviewed the initial oudit findings shortly after the audi t started und al so the final report before transmitral. Quadrcx monancment directed its audit team to report its findings di re c t.ly to client's n.anagement and PCandE
( management as the audit proceeded, as well as in its final nuhnittal, so that the client would be fully cognizant of our fi ndi ngs at the earliest time, and also of the records being audited on which the findings were based.
W bf(G >Ji $ Jff- Enclosure 2
l 1.wADOEM Mr. J. B. Martin Page 2 April 9, 1984 After our audit was submitted to the client, we believe there ,
were reviews of 'its contents by Pullman-Kellogg and PGandE, but we do not have records to indicate that reports of any of these reviews or subsequent actions were supplied to us.
You have advised Quadrex that the NRC has just completed a review of the NSC audit and note many findings at variance wi 5 our report. Your review was made in late 1983 and 1984 to information, documentation, and personnel interviews made avail-able to you at the time.
You have asked if Quadrcx can review the recent NRC findings, compare them to the 1977 NSC findings and discuss the dif fer-ences. You have also ask4d i f I would appear before a Commission hearing wi th thi s evaluatien or any other responses.
Quadrex performed the InItt01 audit under contract to PK with PGandF.'s approval. The re sul t s were based on information made available to us by the client at that time. The findings were
( reviewed with the client as the audit progressed and when the final report was issued. We have not been advised of any actions the client or PGandE took as a consequence of the audit findi ngs , nor in the normal course of compl eting the construc-tion work. Therefore, we are not aware of how the 1977 condi-ti ons have changed in the interim peri od nor of any additional pcrtinent documentation that has been gathered responsive to the issues raised.
Quadrcx is also not cognizant that the same information was (seven
~
avail abl e for review by both pdrties years apart),
whether the same interviews were held, and what the differences were in the respective auditors' evaluation of the presented data. To do this would require reconstituting the original technical team, or an equival ent one, and re-evaluating the comparabl e data, including any additional data gathered by PK, after the 1977 audit was compl e ted , as they did their oan review of the Quadrex findings. The three principal auditors who did the work in 1977 are not now in the employ of Quadrcx and their availability would have to be established. Or, another team of Quadrex auditors could .bc consti tuted which would have to trace the presented data and evaluations of both teams, acquainting themselves by reference and interviews with the earlier auditcrrs' werk.
( Quadrex has not been requested to undertake this effort by its ori gi nal client or by PGandE, nor would we undertake this effort without adequate contractural arrangements acceptabic to all the parties involved.
. .s o
vormen Mr. J. B. Martin Page 3 April 9, 1984 Quadrex cannot , ' ~t.herefore , at this time add substantive informa- .'
tion at a Commission hearing regarding the differences in the audi ts conducted by .dif ferent teams many intervening years and conditions apart. On that basis, we see no ~ merit to appearing or testifying at the April 1984 Commission hearings.
Sincercly ygurs, .,
7
. . .. D.a.
. ' . Ih'e %.
. C.
' rman Naymark Iu President SN:dk O
e
n yn_---. . - - - - - - ---
-# ' , UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 4k ,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REFER TO: M840413B l
'l .
U E wAsMiw: Ton.e.c.20sss 5g 8 ACTION - Martin, RV
- Cys: Dircks April 17, 1984 Roe
( ri:EoFTHE Rehm '
\ 4ECRETARY Stello Denton GCunningham MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secret
~
SUBJECT:
dT5hF REQUIREMENTS - DIS SSION/POSSIBLE VOTE ON DIABLO CANYON CRITICALITY AND LOW
. POWER OPERATION, 2:00 P.M., FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1984, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C.
OFFICE ,(OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
~ ~
The Co==ission continuedits discussion of reinstatement of the Diablo Canyon low-pow'er license.
The Co-mission heard from Nancy Culver (Mothers for Peace) ;
- To= Devine and Charles Stokes (Government Accountability Project); NRC staff; J. Ebersole (ACRS); B. Norton.and G. Maneatis (PG&E) ; and B. Friend (Bechtel).
~
{ '
IThe Co= mission (Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Gilinsky, Asselstine and Bernthal agreeing). recuested that staff try once more to encourage Mr. Naymark (Quadrex/NSC) to address the Commission on the wo:.k they perf ormed for P'G &E . The Commission encouraged PG&.I. to assist in convincing ,
I Quadrex to attend. . . ..
C L';; 8 V ... (SECY 'Juspense: 4/27/84)
The Co= mission, by a vote of 4-1 (bo'=missioner Gilinsky disapproving), approved an Order (SECY-8 4-157, as modified that reinstates the operating license for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 by authoriring criticality and operation of,up to 5 percent power. . ,
3 (Subsequently, on April 13, 1984 the Secretary signed the Order with the views.of Chairman Palladino and Commissioners Gilinsky and Bernthal attached.)
, cc: Chairman Palladino Commission 6r Gilinsky _
( Commissioner Roberts . Enclosure 3 Commissioner Asselstine
, ,g Commissioner Bernthal Commission Staff Offices
! b.}$6 . PDR - Advance R WdOff.EDO i
DCS - 016 Phillips .
tiesa. HAV1.Y..____ ,